|
|
Allegations of Abuse
in Institutions |
|
Homeless children were
particularly vulnerable and John Francis Gainsford had exploited them, the
High Court was told yesterday. Rhonda Markby reports. Children deprived of a
happy family life should have been able to feel safe at the Salvation Army's
Temuka children's home, but instead they had been sexually exploited, the
High Court in Timaru was told yesterday. Summing up the crown's case
against John Francis Gainsford, prosecutor Tim Gresson said the actions of
the manager at the Bramwell Booth home in the early 1970s had been a very
serious breach of trust. Gainsford, 69, of Auckland, has
pleaded guilty to three charges of indecent assault and one of inducing an
indecent act. He has denied 23 indecency and rape charges. Mr Gresson said the homeless
children were particularly vulnerable and could have expected Gainsford to
protect them. "(But) he helped himself to
these children for his own sexual gratification, whenever and wherever he
wanted to. "It is hard to think of a
more serious breach of trust," Mr Gresson said. "Having told staff members of
the abuse and not being believed must have been a nightmare at the
time." He suggested Gainsford, 69, of
Auckland, had tailored his evidence to touching only, to minimise his blame. Some of the evidence was so
detailed that even the wildest imagination couldn't have come up with it, he
said. Mr Gresson told the jury they
could be certain of Gainsford's guilt, as the evidence was just overwhelming.
As to the suggestion that some of the
witnesses had attended a reunion at the home in the mid 80s and colluded in
relation to Gainsford, Mr Gresson argued if they had, they would have
complained to police then, not 20 years later. Gainsford's counsel, Paul Dacre,
told the court that the evidence of a grown man recalling incidents which
occurred 30 years ago was likely to be more accurate than that of a person
who was only a young child 30 years ago. Gainsford had been confronted with
his actions at the home at the time. He had had to front up in his own mind
to what had happened. "He had breached a certain
level of of trust and must have known what he had done. It must have been a
traumatic time and he still knows what that was." Gainsford appreciated what he had
done was very serious. Mr Dacre suggested the issue was
one of credibility versus reliability. If Gainsford was lying, then why
had he effectively volunteered that he had abused another child who was not a
complainant in the case, Mr Dacre asked. Mr Dacre will continue his summing
up this morning before Justice Fogarty also addresses the jury of three men
and nine women. Completing his cross examination
yesterday, Gainsford insisted that while he was not accusing the eight
complainants and other witnesses of lying, he was adamant they were mistaken
in what they had told the court relating to his alleged offending. Asked whether touching the girls
had given him sexual pleasure, Gainsford replied: I really cannot tell you
what my feelings were at the time. I must have gained some satisfaction or
would not have done it. As to why his version of events
was so different from the witnesses, Gainsford said : I think they actually
believe at this point in time what they are saying. I'm simply saying that it
did not occur. |
